1915 No smoking sign - Note how the lady posed in front of the sign while holding a cigarette in each hand |
Not content to have implemented smoking bans in beaches in Vancouver, there is now talk from one City Council that they will ban it in parks because ‘’ Second-hand smoke is a known health hazard, even outdoors, and so banning smoking in parks would help protect children and others from being exposed’’.
It takes about 20 years, if ever, for a heavy smoker to develop a disease suspected to be caused by smoking. This is why the Center For Disease Control SAMMEC software does not compute any ‘’smoking related’’ morbidity and mortality that occurs before the age of 35 in their computer generated estimates. How long then does it take someone who gets occasional whiffs of thousands of times diluted smoke in the great outdoors to get seriously sick and die? Five hundred, a thousand, a million years? How can outdoor smoking ban proponents insult our intelligence when claiming that breathing tobacco in the outdoors is a health hazard? They must really think we are idiots!
And what's this about banning all tobacco products? Are they telling us that smokeless tobacco can also hurt the kiddies in the great outdoors? Naturally there is no talk about banning pharma nicotine inhalers, patches, gum and lozenges. Doesn’t nicotine come primarily from tobacco? Aren’t then these pharmaceutical nicotine products much like the smokeless tobacco products they consider banning? In the face of such incoherency, we can rightfully wonder what ''incentives'' this City Council gets from Big Pharma to consider such absurd ordinances.
1 comment:
"They must really think we are idiots!" They are hoping that that is the case....They are mistaken.
Post a Comment